Plan Commission recommends Marchstone Phase 1 final plat, approves rezones and waivers amid debate over parkland fees and traffic

The Village of Cross Plains Plan Commission on Nov. 3 recommended that the Village Board approve the Marchstone Phase 1 final plat (submitted by JEKY LLC) and associated zoning and waiver requests. The commission voted, by separate motions, to recommend rezoning groups of lots to DR6 and SR5, to approve a plan-development overlay allowing a reduction in a street-side setback from 25 to 13 feet for 11 corner lots, to zone specified stormwater outlots as conservancy and certain future-development outlots as Rural Holding 35, and to recommend two waivers tied to the final plat (a waiver to permit lots smaller than 9,600 square feet and a waiver to allow payment-in-lieu for parkland dedication). The commission also recommended approval of the final plat itself.

Key motions and outcomes recommended to the Village Board (summarized): the commission recommended rezoning the listed lots to DR6 (motion passed), recommended rezoning another set of lots to SR5 (motion passed), recommended the plan-development overlay and the 13-foot street-side setback on 11 corner lots (motion passed), recommended conservancy zoning for stormwater outlots and rural-holding for outlots reserved for future development (motion passed after an amendment clarifying lot numbering and plat date), recommended a waiver from the subdivision-code lot-area minimum (section 83.83(c)) and recommended a waiver to allow payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication (section 83.12) to apply for Phase 1 (motions passed). The commission then recommended approval of the Phase 1 final plat.

Discussion highlights and outstanding clarifications:

- Parkland-fee waiver and process: Staff and commissioners discussed a village-board decision (Oct. 27) tied to a broader infrastructure/developer agreement that had already addressed some parkland/conservancy-fee matters for Phase 1. Several commissioners and trustees expressed concern about the public-process aspects (the board's action arose from negotiations that included a closed session) and about how waiver-of-dedication will affect the village's parkland supply and the timing and use of playground-improvement fees. Staff advised the plan commission's role is to recommend on land-division code waivers to the board; final approval rests with the board on final plat adoption. The commission voted to recommend the waiver; members said the Village Attorney and staff will confirm the legal vote thresholds required by the land-division code (the ordinance language referencing a three-quarters affirmative vote was discussed).

- Sidewalks/paths and traffic: Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff to clarify planned pedestrian facilities. The packet and typical-section drawings show a multi-use path on Evergreen that will continue onto Marchstone, four-way stop signing at Marchstone/Evergreen, and sidewalks on specified streets. Staff and the traffic committee recommended two adjustments adopted as recommendations to the board: (1) add a sidewalk on the north side of Evergreen in the area abutting the school to avoid a short sidewalk gap there; and (2) revise the typical sections to show the path alignment along Evergreen and Marchstone (not Lindale). The developer agreement contains language referencing a rapid-flash beacon (RFB) at a mid-block crossing; staff agreed to clarify the precise pedestrian-crossing location before board action. Commissioners flagged the broader traffic implications for later phases and asked that traffic-committee input be considered before the board meeting.

- Plan-development submission requirements: A resident asked whether architectural elevations and landscaping plans were required with the general-development plan and specific-implementation plan. Planner Sonia explained that architectural elevations are not required at the plan-development zoning step for conventional single-family proposals, but building plans and detailed site plans will be required prior to building permits.

- Stormwater and grading: applicant engineers explained stormwater facilities (overflow/overflow reinforcement) and provided HEC-RAS/HEC-REMD cross sections showing modeled water elevations and a design approach intended not to increase downstream tailwater elevations. Staff noted the plan will undergo county and DNR review as appropriate.

Votes and next steps: The plan commission recorded motions in sequence, and voice votes carried the recommendations. The commission forwarded its recommendations to the Village Board; staff said the board will consider final-plat approval (and the contested fee-waiver elements) at its Nov. 24 meeting. Where the commission noted legal thresholds or procedural uncertainties (for example, whether a three-quarters affirmative vote is required for a particular waiver), staff said the village attorney will confirm the statutory/ordinance requirement before board action.

Quotes from the meeting record: "Architectural plans are not required right now at this step, but they are required prior to pulling a building permit," Planner Sonia said in response to a resident question about plan-development submittals. Trustee Joe said about the parkland-waiver question: "We're going to get the money ... but this is just phase 1," and urged clarity on the total park/green-space outcome across all phases.

The commission recommended approval of the Marchstone Phase 1 final plat and related rezones and waivers; the Village Board will receive the plan commission's recommendations at its next meeting.